DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42778#0031
IN ETRURIA AND ELSEWHERE TO 300 B.C. 9
“ Just as the oldest Greek temples do not correspond,1 in many
elements of plan, structure and decoration, with the fixed type
which the theorists of later days gave as proper to the Doric and
Ionic order, but only mark, through the gradual elimination of
individual elements, that progress towards the rigid canon which
proclaims the decadence of art and the triumph of academic teach-
ing, so excavations have made it clear that the type of Tuscan
temple described by Vitruvius, instead of being the original one, is
comparatively late and has been made still more rigid by his didactic
exposition of it.Vitruvius’ temple is distinguished
in plan from the Greek temple by its greater breadth in proportion
to its length ; and this is a necessary consequence of the triplication
of the cella, inasmuch as three divinities were contained in three
separate compartments. The length of the pronaos was equal to
that of the cellae : two columns on each side were placed on the
line of the external walls, equidistant from one another, and two
others were placed on the line of the walls of the central cella
between them and the front line of columns (see plan and elevation,
Plate VIII, of a temple at Falerii Veteres, the modern Civita
Castellana). He does not say anything of a posticum. As to the
elevation, beyond the proportions of the columns and the capital,
the only certain datum that can be obtained from Vitruvius’
description is the fact that the roof projected considerably beyond
the walls of the cella, though there is some disagreement as to the
amount of this projection.In order to make up
for the scantiness of the data furnished by Vitruvius, careful study
has been devoted to monuments which reproduced the temple on a
small scale (cippi, cinerary urns, sarcophagi, votive shrines) ; but
recourse has been had in still greater measure to excavations, which
have been conducted in the whole territory occupied by the Etrus-
cans from the Po southwards, and, outside Etruria, in Latium and
Umbria. If these excavations have thrown little light on the
superstructure of the Etruscan temple (for its walls and trabeation
have for the most part perished irremediably) they have, on the other
hand, made it clear that its plan, especially in the earliest times,
differs from the Vitruvian type, the length being more important
than the breadth, so that it can be more or less referred to the
Greek type with its lengthened cella and pronaos, the proportions
1 See also Mrs. S. Arthur Strong in Journal of Roman Studies, IV (1914),
157; and Taylor and Bradshaw in Papers of the British School at Rome, VIII
(1916) 1 sqq. (from PI. I of which our Plate VIII is taken).
C
“ Just as the oldest Greek temples do not correspond,1 in many
elements of plan, structure and decoration, with the fixed type
which the theorists of later days gave as proper to the Doric and
Ionic order, but only mark, through the gradual elimination of
individual elements, that progress towards the rigid canon which
proclaims the decadence of art and the triumph of academic teach-
ing, so excavations have made it clear that the type of Tuscan
temple described by Vitruvius, instead of being the original one, is
comparatively late and has been made still more rigid by his didactic
exposition of it.Vitruvius’ temple is distinguished
in plan from the Greek temple by its greater breadth in proportion
to its length ; and this is a necessary consequence of the triplication
of the cella, inasmuch as three divinities were contained in three
separate compartments. The length of the pronaos was equal to
that of the cellae : two columns on each side were placed on the
line of the external walls, equidistant from one another, and two
others were placed on the line of the walls of the central cella
between them and the front line of columns (see plan and elevation,
Plate VIII, of a temple at Falerii Veteres, the modern Civita
Castellana). He does not say anything of a posticum. As to the
elevation, beyond the proportions of the columns and the capital,
the only certain datum that can be obtained from Vitruvius’
description is the fact that the roof projected considerably beyond
the walls of the cella, though there is some disagreement as to the
amount of this projection.In order to make up
for the scantiness of the data furnished by Vitruvius, careful study
has been devoted to monuments which reproduced the temple on a
small scale (cippi, cinerary urns, sarcophagi, votive shrines) ; but
recourse has been had in still greater measure to excavations, which
have been conducted in the whole territory occupied by the Etrus-
cans from the Po southwards, and, outside Etruria, in Latium and
Umbria. If these excavations have thrown little light on the
superstructure of the Etruscan temple (for its walls and trabeation
have for the most part perished irremediably) they have, on the other
hand, made it clear that its plan, especially in the earliest times,
differs from the Vitruvian type, the length being more important
than the breadth, so that it can be more or less referred to the
Greek type with its lengthened cella and pronaos, the proportions
1 See also Mrs. S. Arthur Strong in Journal of Roman Studies, IV (1914),
157; and Taylor and Bradshaw in Papers of the British School at Rome, VIII
(1916) 1 sqq. (from PI. I of which our Plate VIII is taken).
C